Breakthrough on the 109 Rad puncture bug

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Salute All

Couldn't resist posting this, sometimes I am just so impressed by the teamwork and expertise in TF. :D

For all those 109 drivers who have long suspected there was a bug in the way the 109's take rad damage... you were right.

Our damage guy, Catseye, has been working on this issue for a while, and noticed there didn't seem to be a discrete damage .msh for the 109's rads... instead the vanilla game was using the whole inner wing section as the hit box for the rads. He took this to Colander, who looked at the code for this and confirmed the error.

Now if you look at the following diagram of the 109E's rad system, you can see that would provide an aiming area much much larger than the actual rads size, hence the very easy hit possibility when shooting at the 109 wing.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6796/73w6.jpg

What this means is we need to create new .msh objects for the Rads in the correct size, hopefully we can do this for the upcoming release... no guarantees. But if we do, we'll see much more realistic hit probabilities for the 109 rads.

Also while Colander was confirming the issue with the 109 rads, he took a look at the Spit's rad... as many have noticed, the Spits never take rad damage.

Well it seems the 1C developers have misnamed the .msh file for the rad, and therefore it was never taking damage... :stunned:

Unfortunately we run across this type of error quite a bit... but anyway it should be fixable by renaming the .msh file.

So all those who despaired of their 109's damage model... we are working on it. :salute:

And those Spit drivers... Sorry to say, but Rads are going to be an issue. But it will be a realistic one. :salute:

[Dutch]

Thanks Buzz. But what happened to the exploding fuel tank? The fuel tank under the seat has been totally impervious to any form of penetrative abuse for far too long. Admittedly, in past times, the fuel tank would explode spectacularly, but in spite of this, the 109 would simply piss off home. Can we have the exploding tank plus the pilot being totally incinerated? Or at the very least, the 109 having no petrol left? Thanks.
:)

[Bear Pilot]

From someone who flies on both sides....thank you Team Fusion for once again finding and fixing bugs holding Clod back from being an even more incredible and realistic flight sim we all enjoy so much already.

Thanks for all your hard work

Happy hunting

Bear

[Royraiden]

I knew it!! Just kidding, but still excellent news.Thank you for your efforts, they are definitely paying off :-)

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Oh! Do you mean all those perforated radiators were due to ham-fisted engine handling and poor radiator management?

[Skoshi Tiger slinks off with an embarrassed look on his face]

[Injerin]

INJERIN<--- currently installing titanium tub in his spitty!

[Uwe]

"...1C developers have misnamed the .msh file for the rad..."

:stunned:

Man I love you team Fusion fellas, but stuff like the above makes me wonder just who exactly the monkeys that created this sim were? I mean WTF???!!!

Regardless Im very happy to see this is getting addressed!
Watch out tommy, hahahahahahahahahaha!

[1lokos]

In case of Spitfire what happened actually is despite you see coolant leak due hits, this dont affect the engine?

Sokol1

[Little_D]

Salute All

Couldn't resist posting this, sometimes I am just so impressed by the teamwork and expertise in TF. :D

For all those 109 drivers who have long suspected there was a bug in the way the 109's take rad damage... you were right.

Our damage guy, Catseye, has been working on this issue for a while, and noticed there didn't seem to be a discrete damage .msh for the 109's rads... instead the vanilla game was using the whole inner wing section as the hit box for the rads. He took this to Colander, who looked at the code for this and confirmed the error.

Now if you look at the following diagram of the 109E's rad system, you can see that would provide an aiming area much much larger than the actual rads size, hence the very easy hit possibility when shooting at the 109 wing.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6796/73w6.jpg

What this means is we need to create new .msh objects for the Rads in the correct size, hopefully we can do this for the upcoming release... no guarantees. But if we do, we'll see much more realistic hit probabilities for the 109 rads.

Also while Colander was confirming the issue with the 109 rads, he took a look at the Spit's rad... as many have noticed, the Spits never take rad damage.

Well it seems the 1C developers have misnamed the .msh file for the rad, and therefore it was never taking damage... :stunned:

Unfortunately we run across this type of error quite a bit... but anyway it should be fixable by renaming the .msh file.

So all those who despaired of their 109's damage model... we are working on it. :salute:

And those Spit drivers... Sorry to say, but Rads are going to be an issue. But it will be a realistic one. :salute:

wow, this is realy impressif, very good work. this realy let me hope we get some other main problems with dm specialy with spit and 109 corrected. again very nice work :-)




Thanks Buzz. But what happened to the exploding fuel tank? The fuel tank under the seat has been totally impervious to any form of penetrative abuse for far too long. Admittedly, in past times, the fuel tank would explode spectacularly, but in spite of this, the 109 would simply piss off home. Can we have the exploding tank plus the pilot being totally incinerated? Or at the very least, the 109 having no petrol left? Thanks.
:)

but hopefully not the way the radsystem damage in the 109 works right now :) and this brings me to the spit will i see than spits tanks burning too and will it hurt the pilot? since CoD is out, you can set a 109 engin and tank on fire, the tanks and the engin from the hurrie too and both take damaged. i dont know how many spits i shoot the engin out and make the engin burn, engin takes damaged, burns and stops somtimes when hit sometimes little later, so it takes damaged ( everthing ok ), it seams that the fire is animated wrong only a little bit darker grey smoke. ( 109 / Hurrie dark black smoke ). but i dont know if the fire make any damaged to the plane / pilot ore even makes something with the fueltank i mean fire and fueltanke even when not damaged how long could it resist till explosition? and the fuel tank on the spit will they start to burn in all the years i never saw a spit fueltank burn!

regards

Little_D

[DUI]

This is excellent news! Thanks for investigating and fixing it!
Would be great if the changes would make it in the next patch! Even greater if I was the one to rename the new radiator .msh file for the Bf 109. I would misname it a way that no TF programmer would ever be able to adress it correctly... :)

Did you also have a look in the oil radiator system? Just to get sure that this one was modelled correctly by the vanilla developers.

[Mattias]

Would be great if the changes would make it in the next patch! Even greater if I was the one to rename the new radiator .msh file for the Bf 109. I would misname it a way that no TF programmer would ever be able to adress it correctly... :)


roflmao
May I suggest "Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübe rtragungsgesetz"?

[kopperdrake]

"...1C developers have misnamed the .msh file for the rad..."

:stunned:

Man I love you team Fusion fellas, but stuff like the above makes me wonder just who exactly the monkeys that created this sim were? I mean WTF???!!!

With all due respect Uwe, I share your incredulity that daft mistakes like this actually slipped through, but the guys who put this sim together really aren't monkeys and I don't think it fair to call them that - we wouldn't have a CloD to fix if it weren't for them. In all likelihood they were over-worked artists and programmers, not paid a huge amount, and working to ridiculous deadlines. Mistakes like this happen are down to one thing, lack of time and money to polish the job properly.

Absolutely greatly catch TF - it does make you wonder what else has been glossed over and shoved under the carpet to have got the game out originally in some semblance of completeness. Can you imagine the pain of one of the chaps working on this sim, to spend months or years of your life on an aspect, only to have it hacked away at the end? I remember one game I worked on where I was charged with the task of hacking away one third of a level that the designer had spent a year building, because the engine couldn't deliver what the programmers had promised. Painful.

[trooph]

"...1C developers have misnamed the .msh file for the rad..."

:stunned:

Man I love you team Fusion fellas, but stuff like the above makes me wonder just who exactly the monkeys that created this sim were? I mean WTF???!!!

Regardless Im very happy to see this is getting addressed!
Watch out tommy, hahahahahahahahahaha!


After going through so many milions of lines of code few mistakes can happen:)


Great to hear You found that bug!
Still +/- one month for the release :) Cant wait to get my hands on this and fly with proper dmg model and ammunition :)

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Great find guys. Well done.

To be honest, hitting the 109 radiator all the time was becoming a little boring.

Now, when we hit the wing root, the wing root can break properly, rather than the radiator popping. :salute:

[vranac]

In case of Spitfire what happened actually is despite you see coolant leak due hits, this dont affect the engine?

Sokol1

Exactly the same thing, Bounder and I was doing that with E1's, but there is only one rad on spit.You have 2 min left to fly.

What is this, "Eng0WaterRadiatorPerforated" (that is from 109 DM) ?

Could you maybe show as visually which part of the wing is acting as radiator ?

[Kling]

Ha, I knew it!!
Well done guys!!

[SoW Reddog]

Sorry, the Spits don't take Radiator damage? How come every time I get shot at I get a radiator leak then?

Respect to the code boffins for finding this for the 109s.



Makes you wonder how we won the war when they dive better, climb better, have better guns, don't blackout and now won't take any meaningful damage from anything but the most accurate burst :)

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Sorry, the Spits don't take Radiator damage? How come every time I get shot at I get a radiator leak then?


Currently it seems the spitfire radiator is getting perforated when the engine is hit, as opposed to the actual radiator outlet under the wing having its own hit box/ damage profile.
this indicates that the current "radiator perforated" thing is a side-effect of engine damage, as opposed to radiator vent damage....

I don't know if that's what is going on, but I suspect it might be. I have no idea whether the same effect occurs on other types when their engines receive damage.

[Kling]

Sorry, the Spits don't take Radiator damage? How come every time I get shot at I get a radiator leak then?

Respect to the code boffins for finding this for the 109s.



Makes you wonder how we won the war when they dive better, climb better, have better guns, don't blackout and now won't take any meaningful damage from anything but the most accurate burst :)

Hm well in the spit im not its the radiator that brings you down but somehing like "water jack broken" or something. Im not sure what this is to be honest. Maybe its just another word for radiator? Or maybe it is situatated at a completely different place in the aircraft?
On the other hand I never saw "water jack broken" on the 109... Poor Jack, he is up for a change... :P

[Continu0]

Currently it seems the spitfire radiator is getting perforated when the engine is hit, as opposed to the actual radiator outlet under the wing having its own hit box/ damage profile.
this indicates that the current "radiator perforated" thing is a side-effect of engine damage, as opposed to radiator vent damage....

I don't know if that's what is going on, but I suspect it might be. I have no idea whether the same effect occurs on other types when their engines receive damage.

Strange. To me, the spit-radiator-hit-box seemed to be very accurate. I`ve seen it many times that when i shot with the nose-mgs of my 109 that the spit-radiator started to vent at exactly the time that my burst reached the rads position. (talking about situations when my burst "wandered" from the left to the right of the spits wing...)

[Continu0]

Hm well in the spit im not its the radiator that brings you down but somehing like "water jack broken" or something. Im not sure what this is to be honest. Maybe its just another word for radiator? Or maybe it is situatated at a completely different place in the aircraft?
On the other hand I never saw "water jack broken" on the 109... Poor Jack, he is up for a change... :P

I think that is what is called "Wassertank" (water-storage-tank) in the german version of the game. If that gets hit, you will not loose any liquid(in the 109), but your engine is down within 2 mins as well....

[Kling]

Salute All

Couldn't resist posting this, sometimes I am just so impressed by the teamwork and expertise in TF. :D

For all those 109 drivers who have long suspected there was a bug in the way the 109's take rad damage... you were right.

Our damage guy, Catseye, has been working on this issue for a while, and noticed there didn't seem to be a discrete damage .msh for the 109's rads... instead the vanilla game was using the whole inner wing section as the hit box for the rads. He took this to Colander, who looked at the code for this and confirmed the error.

Now if you look at the following diagram of the 109E's rad system, you can see that would provide an aiming area much much larger than the actual rads size, hence the very easy hit possibility when shooting at the 109 wing.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6796/73w6.jpg

What this means is we need to create new .msh objects for the Rads in the correct size, hopefully we can do this for the upcoming release... no guarantees. But if we do, we'll see much more realistic hit probabilities for the 109 rads.

Also while Colander was confirming the issue with the 109 rads, he took a look at the Spit's rad... as many have noticed, the Spits never take rad damage.

Well it seems the 1C developers have misnamed the .msh file for the rad, and therefore it was never taking damage... :stunned:

Unfortunately we run across this type of error quite a bit... but anyway it should be fixable by renaming the .msh file.

So all those who despaired of their 109's damage model... we are working on it. :salute:

And those Spit drivers... Sorry to say, but Rads are going to be an issue. But it will be a realistic one. :salute:

This is a great discovery Buzzaw!!
As one of the guys that was maybe the loudest about it for a while and created some heated debates about it im happy it sees some attention!! :)
Two questions though.

1. The spitfire does indeed go down due to leaking water. But its called "Water jack broken". What is this? And where is it located?

2. On the diagram of the 109 radsystem above it looks like each radsystem can work independantly of the other? So if the left wing is hit should the right wing also bleed like currently is the case in Clod. Or should all liquid bleeding out from out left rad also come from the right side?
Cheers

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

2. On the diagram of the 109 radsystem above it looks like each radsystem can work independantly of the other? So if the left wing is hit should the right wing also bleed like currently is the case in Clod. Or should all liquid bleeding out from out left rad also come from the right side?
Cheers

Point C in the diagram indicates a dependency across both left and right radiators. Whatever fluid goes through that Y junction feeds, or is drawn from, both radiator vents.

Although the damage graphics should only show the bleed from wherever the puncture occurs.... However, there's always/often a slight discrepancy between what the graphics show, and what damage is recorded.

[Kling]

Point C in the diagram indicates a dependency across both left and right radiators. Whatever fluid goes through that Y junction feeds, or is drawn from, both radiator vents.

Yes point C confuses me. It looks like a point which can at pilots discretion be shut off in case the left or the right side is leaking.
However if it cannot, if I have a leak in the left radiator will the water aimed for the right radiator also come out through the left side? Or will some liquid remain in the system?

[DUI]

Makes you wonder how we won the war when they [...] now won't take any meaningful damage from anything but the most accurate burst :)
With the whole inner wing being a hitbox makes me wonder how there even were Bf 109 to return home safely. :guilty:

But I am sure that there still will be a lot of raditor damages - the two radiators of the Bf 109 have a very exposed position. Especially, if attacked from the 6. The correction of the damage model should lead to less radiator hits when attacked from above or beyond or while the plane is in a curve.

[Wulf]

Hm well in the spit im not its the radiator that brings you down but somehing like "water jack broken" or something. Im not sure what this is to be honest. Maybe its just another word for radiator? Or maybe it is situatated at a completely different place in the aircraft?
On the other hand I never saw "water jack broken" on the 109... Poor Jack, he is up for a change... :P


The water jacket refers to the actual channels inside an engine that fill with circulating coolant from the radiator. Obviously, when the crankcase is holed or cracked, the coolant will leak from these channels, the engine will overheat and eventually fail.

[SoW Reddog]

Am I understanding this correctly then, if I see "radiator perforated" message then I am fine, not venting and my engine isn't about to come to a stop, but if I see "water jacket" then I'm leaking and the engine will seize? Obviously it's unusual not to get a bunch of damage all at the same time when getting clobbered by cannons, but taking those two messages in isolation?

Btw, just in case anyone misunderstood, my earlier comment
Makes you wonder how we won the war when they dive better, climb better, have better guns, don't blackout and now won't take any meaningful damage from anything but the most accurate burst was tongue in cheek joke, not serious whinging.

[Kling]

The water jacket refers to the actual channels inside an engine that fill with circulating coolant from the radiator. Obviously, when the crankcase is holed or cracked, the coolant will leak from these channels, the engine will overheat and eventually fail.

Thx for explaining! Well To turn thinga around a bit, i never saw "water jacket broken" message on the 109s...Something is really weird with DM hence why TF is looking at it ;)

[Headshot]

Great job guys. I fly with who ever has fewer fighters. I get far quicker kill count flying red than blue due to 109's rads. Once they start venting you can let them run and know they will have to ditch before they get back across the channel. As far as cockpit fire goes I have burnt more than a few times in a 109, the only problem I have with that is there is no indication your burning except your vision quickly fading to black (maybe AI screaming would do:)) . Not to pick on the poor Hurri but I read some where (yeh right) that fire was one of the main causes off death.

[9./JG52 Ziegler]

I knew it!! Just kidding, but still excellent news.Thank you for your efforts, they are definitely paying off :-)

Hey I did too and I'm not kidding! :) I'm not a crazy old sore loser. :devilish: Nice catch guys!

I've never seen that message either Kling?

[Macro]

Excellent news. Another great fix on the way from tf.

One thing i noticed now thinking about it, my rads have been shot and i dont think its from overheating. Last night i engaged a group of ai bombers and rad got perforated, sure enough there were bullet holes in the wing. Also im sure i got it from enemy flak as well but never from human controlled aircraft.

Might be worth checking if just human fired shots and not ai, but tbh i dont have the know how if this is any different

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Am I understanding this correctly then, if I see "radiator perforated" message then I am fine, .

No. radiator perforation occurs due to overheat, and is not the direct result of gunfire.

[Bounder!]

It's great that the bug has been identified on the 109, as I understand the post, currently you can hit the section of the 109s wing in between the radiators and that registered as a hit?

Have to say I'm a little confused about the Spitfire's radiator not having a hit box? When I fly the 109, it literally takes 1 bullet from my nose guns to blap the Spits radiator if I aim at it. Usually the radiator is obscured by the wing as the Spit pulls turns making it less of a target (unlike the 109 who is usually trying to outclimb/outrun the Spit and thus showing his radiators) but if a Spit doesn't see me coming I take aim at his rad under the right wing and use nose guns for a precise shot, it's a quick and easy way to take him down. Are we saying that it's not possible to hit the radiator but instead what's happening is that coolant lines beside the radiator are being hit causing the radiator to leak? I know from flying both sides it's possible to take down a Spitfire from a single hit to the radiator and the engine goes after 2 mins just like the 109.

Someone in this thread brought up a point I was trying to get at in another thread about fires and specifically, Spitfire vs the 109s engine catching fire. Although it's a little off topic I think it's important, so if I may digress... when the 109s engine is fired upon it's possible for a large fire to start. The pilot burns to death quickly, maybe in about 20 seconds or so. However it seems when the Spitfires engine is hit only a small fire starts and a small flame can be seen on the left hand side of the Spits nose. Compared to the 109, it's a really small fire and it takes ages for the Spitfire's pilot to burn and the engine to die compared with the 109 (around 2-3 minutes in the Spit vs ~20 seconds in the 109). This has never felt right & I wonder if it could be looked at in the future?

[gavagai]

Holy moly! What a find. Thank you very much for addressing it.

[III./ZG76_Saipan]

what book is the diagram from? might have to add that to the collection...

[Roblex]

Compared to the 109, it's a really small fire and it takes ages for the Spitfire's pilot to burn and the engine to die compared with the 109 (around 2-3 minutes in the Spit vs ~20 seconds in the 109). This has never felt right & I wonder if it could be looked at in the future?

I think we need to be sure this is not one of those things that 'everyone knows' but is not actually true. I have certainly burned to death in a spit in under 20 seconds. The screen turned pink and I thought 'Oh dear I must be wounded. I am going to have to fly home with reduced visibility' then when I turned to check I was not leaking any grey smoke or fluids I saw black smoke and my screen went deep red then 5 seconds later it went black and I was dead. If I judged how buggy the fire code was using my own experiences I would say that Blue aircraft very rarely burn as I have only managed it twice despite using incendiaries. Obviously that is not true for everyone else.

[Catseye]

With the whole inner wing being a hitbox makes me wonder how there even were Bf 109 to return home safely. :guilty:

But I am sure that there still will be a lot of raditor damages - the two radiators of the Bf 109 have a very exposed position. Especially, if attacked from the 6. The correction of the damage model should lead to less radiator hits when attacked from above or beyond or while the plane is in a curve.

Just so!!
Testing now.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

2. On the diagram of the 109 radsystem above it looks like each radsystem can work independantly of the other? So if the left wing is hit should the right wing also bleed like currently is the case in Clod. Or should all liquid bleeding out from out left rad also come from the right side?
Cheers

This has been discussed in detail many times before.

The 109E's had a linked system between both radiators, only with 109F and later versions was a system developed to allow the line to be shut off between the two radiators in the event of one being holed... in fact this change was a direct result of the feedback from 109E pilots over the channel who experienced engine failure from one rad being holed and were not able to make it home.

[III./ZG76_Keller]

Great find! I had a feeling that the hitbox was 1/2 the underside of the wing. I'm not going to miss "Water Radiator Perforated" every time I get shot at.

[gavagai]

After the 109F, the 109G series discontinued independent radiator shutoff (no idea why, seems dumb). It was only reintroduced as a rustatze for the 109K-4.

[vranac]

What is this, "Eng0WaterRadiatorPerforated" (that is from 109 DM) ?

Could you maybe show as visually which part of the wing is acting as radiator ?

Bump!

Spit also have this kind of damage.
You stated that there is no water rad damage in .msh files , and that engine uses something else for rad damage(part of wing IIRC).

And from ATAG stats when they were available

***** Damage Caused *****



Plane: Bf-109E-4
----
Inflicted:

Machine gun belt broken

Pneumatics container perforated

Engine water cooling damage

Fuel tank tiny leak

Navigation failure

Machine gun line damaged

Fuel tank tiny leak

Electrical failure

Electrical battery damaged

Engine water cooling damage

Fuel tank small leak


Plane: Bf-109E-4
----
Inflicted:

Fuel tank tiny leak

Engine water cooling damage

Controls generic damage

Engine oil cooling/lubrication damage

Cockpit damage

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Great find! I had a feeling that the hitbox was 1/2 the underside of the wing. I'm not going to miss "Water Radiator Perforated" every time I get shot at.

Of course, from dead astern, the size of the target will be essentially the same as it is now.

[Kling]

Of course, from dead astern, the size of the target will be essentially the same as it is now.

Now, that makes sense

[AKA_Knutsac]

As far as cockpit fire goes I have burnt more than a few times in a 109, the only problem I have with that is there is no indication your burning except your vision quickly fading to black (maybe AI screaming would do:)) . Not to pick on the poor Hurri but I read some where (yeh right) that fire was one of the main causes off death.

I think fire was a major fear of the RAF fighter guys, what with fuels tanks sitting pretty much in their laps. It seems that at the slightest indication of fuel leaks or fire they'd, wisely, bail. Don't know about the German a/c. It would be nice if fire could be better modeled. If engine or cockpit fire, maybe have your view show just flames then fade to black if you don't bail quickly. Shouldn't be any thought of continuing to fight if your a/c is on fire, should be immediate bail or 1) burn to death, 2) explode and die, or 3) suffer structural failure from heat and crash. I guess there may also be times that a burning a/c could be ditched (already low and slow?). For what it's worth.

~S~

AKA_Knutsac

[gavagai]

In the 109 the fuel tank was behind the pilot.

[Macro]

Due to the RAF planes having the tank behind the instrument panel the cockpit would have fuel leaking into the cockpit if the tank was holed. That would be a cool feature. Can imagin it being a bit hard to implement though.

[E69_pupo]

This has been discussed in detail many times before.

The 109E's had a linked system between both radiators, only with 109F and later versions was a system developed to allow the line to be shut off between the two radiators in the event of one being holed... in fact this change was a direct result of the feedback from 109E pilots over the channel who experienced engine failure from one rad being holed and were not able to make it home.

if they were not able to make it home, how could they give feedback? :-P

Excellent work, can't wait for the new version of the mod :D

[Flyingblind]

Like when the Spitfire was hit whilst attacking the train in Dark Blue World and fuel was gushing out over the pilots legs and filling the cockpit. Just what you need as you are about to crash land.

[Macro]

Like when the Spitfire was hit whilst attacking the train in Dark Blue World and fuel was gushing out over the pilots legs and filling the cockpit. Just what you need as you are about to crash land.

Exactly, can you imagin how terrifying that must have been.

[Skoshi_Tiger]

Exactly, can you imagin how terrifying that must have been.

With those twelve exhaust stacks spouting flames a metre or so in front!

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

For anyone who is interested, here is a pic from the .msh's showing the area which was designated as hitbox for the rad.

You can see it is much larger than the area of the actual rad...

Our team is presently tearing their hair out as how to fix this, but hopefully there will be a permanent fix for release 2. :thumbsup:

If not, there will be a temporary fix for the problem in place.

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7628/8thb.jpg

[Dutch]

If not, there will be a temporary fix for the problem in place.

Oh yes? And what form would that take please? Excuse my suspicions here Buzz......:D

[ATAG_Colander]

Oh yes? And what form would that take please? Excuse my suspicions here Buzz......:D

You will not notice any difference between the 2 fixes.

One is the quick and dirty and the other one is the right way.

To give a car example, one is replacing the fuel pump of a toyota with a ford one and the other one is using a genuine toyota part.
Either part, the car will work fine :D

[Catseye]

You will not notice any difference between the 2 fixes.

One is the quick and dirty and the other one is the right way.

To give a car example, one is replacing the fuel pump of a toyota with a ford one and the other one is using a genuine toyota part.
Either part, the car will work fine :D

Geeze, and I was gonna' change the wing property from aluminium to brick. :)

[DUI]

For anyone who is interested, here is a pic from the .msh's showing the area which was designated as hitbox for the rad.http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7628/8thb.jpg
The hitbox for the radiator is the grey part, right? :)

[Broodwich]

So its too large on one side, but no hitbox on the other?

[DUI]

Surely, this is just an example for the left radiator. The right one has its own hitbox.

[ATAG_Colander]

The image does not show it clearly....
The actual radiator on a 109 is just a rectangle inside the air duct.
Currently, the complete duct is considered as being the radiator instead of only the actual radiator inside it.

Once is fixed, the rad area from dead 6 will be almost the same as it is now (minus the duct width) but it will be a very small area when shooting from bellow.

Also, angle shots will have a harder time hitting the radiator.

Since a pic is better than 1000 words:
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3515&d=1375997173


Excuse my ms paint skills :)

3515

[Kling]

The image does not show it clearly....
The actual radiator on a 109 is just a rectangle inside the air duct.
Currently, the complete duct is considered as being the radiator instead of only the actual radiator inside it.

Once is fixed, the rad area from dead 6 will be almost the same as it is now (minus the duct width) but it will be a very small area when shooting from bellow.

Also, angle shots will have a harder time hitting the radiator.

Since a pic is better than 1000 words:
http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=3515&d=1375997173


Excuse my ms paint skills :)

3515

No, thats a great demonstration!! Do you think you will be able to actually change it now that you are aware of the bug?
How does it look for the spit?

Cheers

[DUI]

TF will correct the radiator bug in the next patch (see details above).
No idea about the Spitfire bug though.

[Catseye]

TF will correct the radiator bug in the next patch (see details above).
No idea about the Spitfire bug though.

Hi DUI,
Specify please what you mean by "Spitfire bug".
Thanks,
Cats . . .

[Catseye]

So its too large on one side, but no hitbox on the other?

Hi Boodwich,
Both sides are the same.
Graphic is just an illustration.
Cats . . .

[DUI]

(...) Also while Colander was confirming the issue with the 109 rads, he took a look at the Spit's rad... as many have noticed, the Spits never take rad damage.

Well it seems the 1C developers have misnamed the .msh file for the rad, and therefore it was never taking damage... :stunned:(...)
This one. :salute:

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

This one. :salute:

Actually further investigation shows they do take damage... misreading of the file.

[gavagai]

And the Hurricane radiator? Or is it pointless to look at that because no one flies it in multiplayer...:)

[III./ZG76_Keller]

Of course, from dead astern, the size of the target will be essentially the same as it is now.

I notice that most of the time that my rad is hit is from low 6 o'clock when my belly is partially exposed, IE climbing away from a spit that's just about to stall.

[1lokos]

he took a look at the Spit's rad... as many have noticed, the Spits never take rad damage.



But...

http://tinypic.com/r/ic5qiv/5

1:14 water radiator hit by AI Bf 110 rear gunner.
1:15 leakage visible.
1:16 temperature still under control (102º).
1:17 engine gask leak (misfire in some cilinder).
1:18 temperature raise, governor failure (and after engine stop).

In this case the Spit water radiator leakage is not due engine temperature, but perhaps the opposite...

Or this leakege is only visual? :doh:

Sokol1

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

But...

http://i39.tinypic.com/j5auds.jpg

1:14 radiator hit by AI Bf 110 rear gunner.
1:15 leakage visible.
1:16 temperature still under control (102º).
1:17 engine gask leak (misfire in some cilinder).
1:18 temperature raise, governor failure (and after engine stop).

In this case the Spit radiator leakage is not due engine temperature, but perhaps the opposite...

Or this leakege is only visual? :doh:

Sokol1

As mentioned above, we misread the file, the Spit Rad does take damage.

[Broodwich]

Hi Boodwich,
Both sides are the same.
Graphic is just an illustration.
Cats . . .

Got it thanks!

Any word on whether other materials will be flammable besides fuel?

:salute:

[Mastiff]

Got it thanks!

Any word on whether other materials will be flammable besides fuel?

:salute:

that's interesting you ask that because I watched a wing on a HE111 catch fire and it went up to the engine and then flamed the rest of the wing .
I've seen a 109s engine catch fire and move down into the cockpit.

[Kling]

I havent heard from Holygrail in ages!!! He did wonders to the effects in Il2 1946 and i believe he was working on fire effrcts and smoke effects for CLOD..
Anyone knows where he is?

[Macro]

As mentioned above, we misread the file, the Spit Rad does take damage.

I knew it took damage im sure that was wrong. So glad the 109 getting sorted out, and the clouds, and the ammo, and optimising. You guys are fabulous.

[ATAG_Colander]

This is why TF members should not jump the gun and make a public post about things until they are checked, re-checked and verified.

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

This is why TF members should not jump the gun and make a public post about things until they are checked, re-checked and verified.

No harm done.
It was a good discussion.

[Kling]

Agree with Philstyle! No harm done!

[Talisman]

Thanks Buzz. But what happened to the exploding fuel tank? The fuel tank under the seat has been totally impervious to any form of penetrative abuse for far too long. Admittedly, in past times, the fuel tank would explode spectacularly, but in spite of this, the 109 would simply piss off home. Can we have the exploding tank plus the pilot being totally incinerated? Or at the very least, the 109 having no petrol left? Thanks.
:)

Very much agree with this. I have read that the 'L' shaped fuel tank fitted around the pilot's seat was found to be highly vulnerable to attack, even with armour protection. Also, self-sealing tanks not in use early on. The early version of CloD appeared to model this vulnerability of the Me 109 E fuel tank visually, but the consequences of damaging the fuel tank and exploding it had no effect and the pilot just flew on as if nothing had happened. Since the CloD developers reduce the effect of fire and explosion we appear to get very little damage on the Me 109 when aiming and hitting the fuel tank, despite the tank being in an easy place to hit in combat.

My question is: Is the Me 109 E fuel tank damage model correctly configured and turned on?

Happy landings,

Talisman

[vranac]

Could you please clarify this a litlle bit more Colander?

Are you planing to do something like this with the radiator hitbox ?
That can be concluded from your picture.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3M/tD/4Vuq9m0W/109-rad.jpg

Or the whole rad will be the hitbox?

There is not much difference between radiator and the duckt in size.

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/20/JA/45W6f0L7/18.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/11/R3/3qSIaLhS/28.jpg
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1N/Li/4GqevkFU/epin1.jpg


And looking from above:

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/2w/Yt/3Jq6xIZk/109e-rad-form-abve.jpg

[kopperdrake]

And the Hurricane radiator? Or is it pointless to look at that because no one flies it in multiplayer...:)

Bloody cheek :-P


http://youtu.be/1CtVgQ6fNqU

[Dutch]

Very much agree with this. I have read that the 'L' shaped fuel tank fitted around the pilot's seat was found to be highly vulnerable to attack, even with armour protection. Also, self-sealing tanks not in use early on. The early version of CloD appeared to model this vulnerability of the Me 109 E fuel tank visually, but the consequences of damaging the fuel tank and exploding it had no effect and the pilot just flew on as if nothing had happened. Since the CloD developers reduce the effect of fire and explosion we appear to get very little damage on the Me 109 when aiming and hitting the fuel tank, despite the tank being in an easy place to hit in combat.

My question is: Is the Me 109 E fuel tank damage model correctly configured and turned on?

Happy landings,

Talisman

Thanks Talisman. It occurs to me that the size of the rad hit box may be deliberately oversized, due to the fact that the fuel tank takes no damage. Therefore, if the size of the rad hit box is reduced, the fuel tank should be damageable. Currently, it ain't.

Simply reducing the 109s rad hit box gives the 109 a great improvement to survivability, so how about the fuel tank, you TF chaps? :D

[92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)]

Thanks Talisman. It occurs to me that the size of the rad hit box may be deliberately oversized, due to the fact that the fuel tank takes no damage. Therefore, if the size of the rad hit box is reduced, the fuel tank should be damageable. Currently, it ain't.

Simply reducing the 109s rad hit box gives the 109 a great improvement to survivability, so how about the fuel tank, you TF chaps? :D

Exactly. Presumably there is other important aircraft parts where the radiator hit box was?
Those other parts (fuel tanks? hydrulic lines? under carriage struts? wing root? etc....) should now take damage.

[Catseye]

Very much agree with this. I have read that the 'L' shaped fuel tank fitted around the pilot's seat was found to be highly vulnerable to attack, even with armour protection. Also, self-sealing tanks not in use early on. The early version of CloD appeared to model this vulnerability of the Me 109 E fuel tank visually, but the consequences of damaging the fuel tank and exploding it had no effect and the pilot just flew on as if nothing had happened. Since the CloD developers reduce the effect of fire and explosion we appear to get very little damage on the Me 109 when aiming and hitting the fuel tank, despite the tank being in an easy place to hit in combat.

My question is: Is the Me 109 E fuel tank damage model correctly configured and turned on?

Happy landings,

Talisman

Hi Talisman,
What ammo was being used in your observations?
If it was the DeWilde - it wasn't working correctly.
Ball will not do it nor will AP.
But . . . if you were using incendiaries (white), it lights up very nicely.

Just a thought.

Cats . . . .

[Roblex]

Got it thanks!

Any word on whether other materials will be flammable besides fuel?

:salute:

I have also seen small fires break out on a 109 tailplane though they may have gone out later.

[Macro]

Hi Talisman,
What ammo was being used in your observations?
If it was the DeWilde - it wasn't working correctly.
Ball will not do it nor will AP.
But . . . if you were using incendiaries (white), it lights up very nicely.

Just a thought.

Cats . . . .

you sure?
i use 50% AP 50% dewilde and i can set the fuel tank on fire ok, with the pilot dying or bailing a few seconds later.
:salute:

[Dutch]

Time to eat my own words, with apologies to all who may have been misled.

Cats is correct, and I was wrong, partly. We don't get the huge explosion anymore, but we do get this, as long as we use white incendiary tracer, and also DeWilde, according to Macro above. (Huge throbbing red face time :D )

352935303531

I still miss the explosion though......

[vranac]

you sure?
i use 50% AP 50% dewilde and i can set the fuel tank on fire ok, with the pilot dying or bailing a few seconds later.
:salute:

I use 30% De Wilde and also see lot of burning parts (wingtips, ailerons, tails...) but I miss those nice flashes.

[Catseye]

I use 30% De Wilde and also see lot of burning parts (wingtips, ailerons, tails...) but I miss those nice flashes.

???
What version of the DeWilde are you using??

It flashes in the current version but does little else.

If it isn't flashing then you are not using the DeWilde or have a previous test version of the DeWilde.

[Catseye]

you sure?
i use 50% AP 50% dewilde and i can set the fuel tank on fire ok, with the pilot dying or bailing a few seconds later.
:salute:

Yes I'm sure.
It is possible to set the tank on fire with a combination AP old DeWilde if the conditions are right.
The probablilites are much higher with white tracer incendiary.

[Macro]

lol the game version I don't have any others

I get what vranac says, wouldn't say a lot of fires though the but a decent burst sets the fuel tank alight.

i use:
1. AP
dewilde
2. dewilde
AP
3. AP
dewilde
4. dewilde
AP
...etc


I have heard many people say tracer is far more effective, but I don't like the huns to know I'm shooting at them until I'm putting holes in their planes :devilish:

[Catseye]

Time to eat my own words, with apologies to all who may have been misled.

Cats is correct, and I was wrong, partly. We don't get the huge explosion anymore, but we do get this, as long as we use white incendiary tracer, and also DeWilde, according to Macro above. (Huge throbbing red face time :D )

352935303531

I still miss the explosion though......

Hi Dutch,
Just to follow up.
This is a sequence of a BF109-E3 hit with the NEW DeWilde currently going into Beta test.

No big explosion but rather streaming flame and then flame erupting through the cockpit as the pilot bales.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

[Catseye]

lol the game version I don't have any others

I get what vranac says, wouldn't say a lot of fires though the but a decent burst sets the fuel tank alight.

i use:
1. AP
dewilde
2. dewilde
AP
3. AP
dewilde
4. dewilde
AP
...etc


I have heard many people say tracer is far more effective, but I don't like the huns to know I'm shooting at them until I'm putting holes in their planes :devilish:

Ah, when you said "missing flashes" I thought you were speaking about the DeWilde flash on impact but I think you were now describing fuel tank explosions?

The DeWilde has been totally remodelled and will now flash on impact and also have the correct penetration attributes and incendiary qualities that were missing in the last 1C official patch.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

[Dutch]

Cheers Cats. The first three shots I did were 50/50 AP/white incendiary as per your recommendation. I then did the same test with my usual loadout , i.e. 50/50 AP/DeWilde and got this.

3535353635373538

It seemed a little easier with the deWilde, but this was a very unscientific test. :D

[Talisman]

???
What version of the DeWilde are you using??

It flashes in the current version but does little else.

If it isn't flashing then you are not using the DeWilde or have a previous test version of the DeWilde.

Cats,

I use AP/DW mix. However, now I am confused by your post (I am easily confused LOL). I thought I was up-to-date with patches, or how could I fly on ATAG and SoW? The DeWilde I use is not flashing. I thought you new this and were working on getting the flashes back like we had when CloD was released. The DeWilde I use, and thought everyone else was using, appears not to be as effective as it was on CloD release as this ammo and fires and explosions (inc DW flashes) were toned down by the developers in one of their last patches to try and improve fps. In short, the DW is porked so I reduced it to a smaller percentage in my ammo loadout because it was not working as effectively as before (i.e. it did not set fires on enemy aircraft like it did before. Yes, we get the odd bit of fire now and then, but nothing like the original release and RL gun cam footage. I am hitting a lot of Me 109's in the vulnerable fuel tank area with a mix of AP/DW and I am not getting the results the we used to get before. Surely you remember the Me 109 fuel tanks getting hit and exploding in a ball of flame and nothing else happening because the damage model did not recognise the damage, it was a regular occurrence and damn annoying to get hits on target and then see the Me 109 fly merrily on.

I use AP to make sure the damage is done and that fuel and vapour are about and DW to ignite it; however, it just does not happen much at all since the original developers messed things about to try and improve game performance; correct me if I am wrong about all this.

P.S. I do not use tracer of any kind.

[Catseye]

Cheers Cats. The first three shots I did were 50/50 AP/white incendiary as per your recommendation. I then did the same test with my usual loadout , i.e. 50/50 AP/DeWilde and got this.

3535353635373538

It seemed a little easier with the deWilde, but this was a very unscientific test. :D


Hi Dutch,
The Devs changed the DeWilde to an incorrectly defined explosive round that had 0.5 g of ammonium nitrate. This certainly made it flash on impact (which I suspect they were trying to do.), but making it an explosive round caused it to disintegrate on impact (didn't have enough explosive charge to do otherwise) rather than penetrate as a white hot molten bullet.

Just using the old dewilde, one would have to fire almost the complete loadout to get results - ie., a fire - this was doable but not correct. When using the DeWilde in conjunction with ball or AP, the ball or AP would puncture the fuel tank and then with a little luck the dewilde flash/exploding shell would ignite the fuel stream. Sometimes, the dewilde round would enter the same "hole" and gain access to burning subcomponents that way.

The New DeWilde is a different animal all together. In my three pics, that was all that was loaded and it took a 3 second burst. It is not an exploding shell any more but rather a ball based projectile that penetrates with a payload of 0.5 g of ammonium nitrate and it flashes on impact. This makes it similar in design to the white tracer but a step above it in its ability to do damage as is defined in RAF test reports.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

[Macro]

yea im really looking forward to it, will be like having an ammo boost for me :D

[Dutch]

The New DeWilde is a different animal all together. In my three pics, that was all that was loaded and it took a 3 second burst. It is not an exploding shell any more but rather a ball based projectile that penetrates with a payload of 0.5 g of ammonium nitrate and it flashes on impact. This makes it similar in design to the white tracer but a step above it in its ability to do damage as is defined in RAF test reports.

Don't worry mate, I believe you completely, but from that test I did I can understand where the 'lively discussion' has come from. For instance, in my first three pics, I think only 2 guns were firing, as all guns were loaded with 50/50 AP/Tracer but only 2 could be seen firing. I'm pretty confident all guns were firing in the second set of pics, but it took well less than a second with my usual loadout. But worry not, I can see from the screenshots that my DeWilde already flash, in spite of what others might say, and I look forward fully to having an even better DeWilde than current. :D

:salute:

[Catseye]

Cats,

I use AP/DW mix. However, now I am confused by your post (I am easily confused LOL). I thought I was up-to-date with patches, or how could I fly on ATAG and SoW? The DeWilde I use is not flashing. I thought you new this and were working on getting the flashes back like we had when CloD was released. The DeWilde I use, and thought everyone else was using, appears not to be as effective as it was on CloD release as this ammo and fires and explosions (inc DW flashes) were toned down by the developers in one of their last patches to try and improve fps. In short, the DW is porked so I reduced it to a smaller percentage in my ammo loadout because it was not working as effectively as before (i.e. it did not set fires on enemy aircraft like it did before. Yes, we get the odd bit of fire now and then, but nothing like the original release and RL gun cam footage. I am hitting a lot of Me 109's in the vulnerable fuel tank area with a mix of AP/DW and I am not getting the results the we used to get before. Surely you remember the Me 109 fuel tanks getting hit and exploding in a ball of flame and nothing else happening because the damage model did not recognise the damage, it was a regular occurrence and damn annoying to get hits on target and then see the Me 109 fly merrily on.

I use AP to make sure the damage is done and that fuel and vapour are about and DW to ignite it; however, it just does not happen much at all since the original developers messed things about to try and improve game performance; correct me if I am wrong about all this.

P.S. I do not use tracer of any kind.

Hi Talisman,
Something strange here.
If you select dewilde as a loadout it will flash. The devs made it that way and porked it in doing so.
Try a complete loadout of dewilde only and test to see if it flashes.
Check your loadouts also where you have dewilde 'cause if it doesn't flash, then it is not dewilde but possibly Ball or AP. CLOD does some strange things in the ammo selection area.

The only DeWilde ammunition that acts as a dewilde and does not flash is a test version from many months ago. It was being evaluated for ballistics and TF had not yet made the link to the flash. But you would need to be running the TF test versions (which were not released to the public or to anyone in TF other than the graphics guys who were also testing.)

Also, if you use white tracer, you will see all kinds of fires happening. A very effective round indeed.

Either way, hang in there for the next TF version.

Let me know.

Cheers,
Cats,
ps. See my post to Dutch on the comparison of the old versus new dewilde.

[Catseye]

Don't worry mate, I believe you completely, but from that test I did I can understand where the 'lively discussion' has come from. For instance, in my first three pics, I think only 2 guns were firing, as all guns were loaded with 50/50 AP/Tracer but only 2 could be seen firing. I'm pretty confident all guns were firing in the second set of pics, but it took well less than a second with my usual loadout. But worry not, I can see from the screenshots that my DeWilde already flash, in spite of what others might say, and I look forward fully to having an even better DeWilde than current. :D

:salute:

Great Dutch!

Just wanted to let you and others know of the change in the ammo and that in both your pics and mine the resultant fire stream is the same. No big explosion but rather a trail of fire and smoke depending on what components ignite along with the fuel tank. The difference is in the ammo mix and the amount of incendiary used to obtain the same results.

Cheers,
Cats . . .

[vranac]

???
What version of the DeWilde are you using??

It flashes in the current version but does little else.

If it isn't flashing then you are not using the DeWilde or have a previous test version of the DeWilde.

Catseye, I'm using TF 3.01 patch. No test versions here.

I'm not complaning at any kind of ammo on any side, I find them all very effective (even Breda-SAFAT 12.7 mm :shoot: :D
Only maybe what Karaya mentioned in his thread about German 20mm shells.

[Catseye]

Catseye, I'm using TF 3.01 patch. No test versions here.

I'm not complaning at any kind of ammo on any side, I find them all very effective (even Breda-SAFAT 12.7 mm :shoot: :D
Only maybe what Karaya mentioned in his thread about German 20mm shells.

Hi Vranac,
He he, I've had a little fun putting 8 Hispano's on my Hurricane and it almost stopped in mid-air. :)

Cats . . .

[vranac]

Hi Vranac,
He he, I've had a little fun putting 8 Hispano's on my Hurricane and it almost stopped in mid-air. :)

Cats . . .

Ahh :whacky4:

I saw something like that in memoirs from some Russian pilots with 45 mm cannon installed :D

Only one :recon:

This is ShVak in the hand 20 mm
http://www.dodaj.rs/f/1K/fL/BKSVO04/qq011.jpg

And the other babies to compare ( ShVak is third one from the left)

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/2p/Ql/1wCeh5uF/spbvf002.jpg

That one on the right is that 45 mm artillery round :D

[Dutch]

I'm the one on the far left.......

[vranac]

I'm the one on the far left.......

Don't worry Dutch, we have lots of them x8 :D

[rollingstoned]

Salute All

Couldn't resist posting this, sometimes I am just so impressed by the teamwork and expertise in TF. :D

For all those 109 drivers who have long suspected there was a bug in the way the 109's take rad damage... you were right.

Our damage guy, Catseye, has been working on this issue for a while, and noticed there didn't seem to be a discrete damage .msh for the 109's rads... instead the vanilla game was using the whole inner wing section as the hit box for the rads. He took this to Colander, who looked at the code for this and confirmed the error.

Now if you look at the following diagram of the 109E's rad system, you can see that would provide an aiming area much much larger than the actual rads size, hence the very easy hit possibility when shooting at the 109 wing.

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/6796/73w6.jpg

What this means is we need to create new .msh objects for the Rads in the correct size, hopefully we can do this for the upcoming release... no guarantees. But if we do, we'll see much more realistic hit probabilities for the 109 rads.

Also while Colander was confirming the issue with the 109 rads, he took a look at the Spit's rad... as many have noticed, the Spits never take rad damage.

Well it seems the 1C developers have misnamed the .msh file for the rad, and therefore it was never taking damage... :stunned:

Unfortunately we run across this type of error quite a bit... but anyway it should be fixable by renaming the .msh file.

So all those who despaired of their 109's damage model... we are working on it. :salute:

And those Spit drivers... Sorry to say, but Rads are going to be an issue. But it will be a realistic one. :salute:

*kisses team fusion on the lips*

[Dutch]

*kisses team fusion on the lips*

Ahem! Bit suspect old man, but live and let live, as they say. So, anyone know the results of the ashes test series....

[Foul Ole Ron]

*kisses team fusion on the lips*

Sorry to burst your rad.. I mean bubble but turns out it wasn't a bug with rad size after all:

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5178

Maybe they've found something else causing an issue but I haven't heard anything yet.

[1lokos]

http://www.dodaj.rs/f/3M/tD/4Vuq9m0W/109-rad.jpg


Seems that someone forget to tighten the screws of Bf.109 radiator after this "hit box" study. :)

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4904/48501132.4/0_b9660_eda36c6e_XL.jpg

http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/9255/48501132.4/0_b965f_21cb110a_XL.jpg

Sokol1

[Panzer]

Edited and Deleted.

I´m sure something was wrong, with the Bf.109 radiators.

I'll have to shot a landed BF109 with ground vehicle machine guns, that would be a good test for see the size of the radiators damage box.

5251


Sorry to burst your rad.. I mean bubble but turns out it wasn't a bug with rad size after all:

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5178

Maybe they've found something else causing an issue but I haven't heard anything yet.

:(

I must read this topic

[Panzer]

More easy you can shot the BF 109 radiators area and the wing area, with a plane gun turret.. both planes on ground
That gives an idea of ​​the damage Box for radiators .
Just an idea . I am very Rookie :recon:

[Roblex]

I wish the mods would delete this thread. We now have a whole new generation od newbies reading the first post and not realising that it was debunked later in the thread :-(

[ATAG_Snapper]

I won't delete the thread because there's a lot of good info on the 109 cooling systems and their evolution here. However, I agree that this particular thread has run its course, the rad issue of the 109 was resolved in TF Patch 4.00, so it's best this thread be closed before old arguments are resurrected as new ones.

Cheers,

Snapper